... the more they stay the same! As follow up to this post, I received a visit from 2 AC officers a few days ago. They asked me a few questions about the at-large dogs and we had a brief follow up conversation about it.
One thing about that conversation I really did NOT appreciate were the logical contortions they went through to absolve Rover and Fido.
Here is what I am talking about: I mentioned that another neighbor had seen the dogs kill and dismember a cat on her front lawn. They responded "ALLEGEDLY killed...". Apparently, the other complainant had not actually seen the dogs attack the living cat, merely tear it apart. I estimate she heard a commotion, and proceeded to a door/window after the dogs had already begun their dirty deed.
My response? A facepalm and a big eye-roll. This is insulting to the intelligence. Look, this block does not have a problem with dead cats strewn everywhere. The theory that the cat had a heart attack and died just prior to Rover and Fido happening along is REALLY far fetched. We are contemplating way past reasonable doubt here. Did a necropsy show the cat was already dead? No? Then the most likely explanation is Rover and Fido chased down the cat and killed it. No sane society would grant these sort of due-process protections to DOGS.
This was nothing but a big cop-out engineered to get Rover and Fido off the hook.
In any case, they did state that they intended to continue to cite the dog owner with escalating penalties as the offenses racked up. So, there is that.
Enjoy your Sunday afternoon!
I've long since realized that AC wanted to be doggie social workers and hates to deal with belligerent, asshole dog owners and will do everything they can to NOT deal with them, starting with rigging the system in the dog owners favor.
ReplyDeleteWe have the same kind of system in Tucson. Which is why I only use animal control for making the initial report about barking. If the barking isn't abated, I send a certified letter, return receipt requested, to the property owner. If that doesn't work, then it's time to bring in my lawyer.
DeleteMatter of fact, I am going to call him tomorrow. Because one of my most obstinate neighbors just got another dog. I went through hell and back trying to get them to quiet their previous dog, and I'm not going to put up with more crap from them this time around. If they don't quiet that yapper, they're going to see me in court and I do plan to seek damages.
YQN: Isn't it amazing how so many dog fanatics just don't get it - they have a dog that gets them into trouble, and what do they do? Go out and get more dogs. Its like trying to spend your way out of bankruptcy. Its a one-track-mind mentality - dogs make everything better.
Delete.... rigging the system in the dog owners favor.
ReplyDeleteYou summed up the current regime perfectly. The system is indeed rigged in favor of Rover and his owner.
Where I live I'm not permitted to even file a complaint about dog noise without 30 minutes of date and time stamped video. So ME, the victim, has to go out and spend MY money buying equipment to tape the sonic menace as if I didn't have lots of better things to do than complain or better ways to spend my money. It's a travesty.
DeleteDo your authorities actually take any action upon being presented with this "proof", or do you have a multiple-household rule, too?
Delete